Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday November 20, 2006 @05:38AM
from the not-in-it-for-the-money dept.

gerrysteele writes to point out a recent post to the Dilbert blog, in which Scott Adams discusses the atheist ascendancy in America and rationalizes the need for an atheist leader. From the article: "Ask a deeply religious Christian if he'd rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don't seem so bad lately. I think that in an election cycle or two you will see an atheist business leader emerge as a legitimate candidate for president. And his name will be Bill Gates."

Forget Bill, the rest of article says something even more beautiful than his possible presidency.

I'm so happy that Atheists might possibly be able to achieve the lofy satus that homosexuals enjoy in our society, and might be even more respected than terrorists. Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality, I absolutely love the idea that I might be able to catch up with gay people on the social pecking order. Now if only I had the chance of being less of an outcast than blacks in the south, but I'm sure unwed mothers and pickpockets will always beat out the both of us.

I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality

I think this says far more about the lack of morality of the person making this statement than it does about the morality of athiests - they are obviously only held in check by their fear of divine retribution and are incredulous that anybody who is not so constrained would act in a moral manner because they themselves wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it.

Noting more pathetic than when an adult fails to ever self actualize. I think it rather bad-joke-and-groaning-about-it that someone determines North on their moral compass from some imaginary man in the sky, but thinks it impossible for someone to come up with their own rules seemingly from out of thin air.

Interesting indeed. I would assume the Christian in question was referring to some kind of consistent morality. Although most of my fellow Christian are woefully ignorant about their own faith and could not distinguish the difference between Christianity and any other mainstream religion. Chances are someone they respect said the same thing "Atheists have no moral capacity" and thought, hey this person is saying something bad about Atheists, it must be true!

That aside, in my opinion, the atheist moral issue is more of a concern because it allows the scope of human stupidity larger reign. Regardless of whether a person thinks there is a God or not, there is a certain amount of respect to be paid to moral laws that are 8-10K years old. Humanity has learned certain lessons in the past and we need to heed those lessons. Example, even my atheist friends agree, If humanity would be more careful with its sexuality, (be more picky with partners, or abstain to a bonding relationship), we would be able to make STDs a very manageable problem. Many major religions have included abstinence in their moral law.

Now from a Theological standpoint, a Christian should not fear breaking the law because God will smite them. The proper fear comes from the human consequences. Eat Pork in 1500BC and you will have issues, weave different kinds of thread, you will have issues, or the bigger laws, Covet and you will pay $5K for a PS3.

The advantage that a Theistic group has, is it can enforce moral law without explaining it all. But if you delve into each Law it usually has a good, nontheistic, reason for it. The whole Wrath of God idea, just makes it easy to enforce. Whereas an atheist has to rely on his/her own discipline to maintain a moral law. Good luck controlling mass stupidity that way:)

A person who followed Biblical laws to the letter (i.e. kill your disobedient children, kill homosexuals, kill nonbelievers, etc) would be headed straight for prison in a modern, secular society.

Funny. Even when Israel was an independant state, the Talmudic death penalty was rarely enforced. And as soon as Jesus of Nazareth started saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", well, the modern sense of compassion and mercy became law.

(And I'd be interested to hear your quotes for any one of those things, btw -- I'm pretty sure that you had be worse than "abomination" to merit the death penalty, and that's all that homosexuality was classified as. No worse than a menstrating woman going to temple.)

How many of the Ten Commandments are actually laws in any modern society? Two, maybe three? God is only 25% correct?

1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Democratic socieites prohibit the enforcement of a state religion, meaning that Christians are not forced to have any other gods. Plus, there are still several American communities where not going to church will get you ostracised.

2: "Do not take the name of the Lord in vain." Nope, no legal effect.

3: "Observe the sabbath and keep it holy": I just had a weekend, as did some 80% of my countrymen. Those of us who worked on that day chose to work it, and their employers have a legally-mandated fiscal incentive to give them at least one day in seven off.

4: "Honor thy father and thy mother": Elder law requires us to take care of our parents, either directly or through paying taxes. And parents have standing to file an array of cases relating to their children and grandchildren that ordinary folk have to fight tooth and nail for.

5: Murder. (Yep, all kinds of laws against that.)

6: No Adultury (It's a crime in NY, and either a crime or a cause for divorce elsewhere.)

7: Do not steal (Yep.)

8: Do not bear false witness (ever hear of perjury? Libel?)

9: "Do not covet your neighbor's wife" -- actually, more than a few states still have laws against interfering with someone's marriage.

10: Don't covet anything else (nope, no legal effect.)

So, on a modest view, 8/10 commandments are still legally enforced at least somewhere in America. If you want to be more strict, 6/10 are core principles of a modern democratic society. And either way you splice it, the other 2 or 4 are seen as "very good ideas."

I think this says far more about the lack of morality of the person making this statement than it does about the morality of athiests - they are obviously only held in check by their fear of divine retribution and are incredulous that anybody who is not so constrained would act in a moral manner because they themselves wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it.

I think that is a pretty reductionist way of looking at things. Most Christians in reality do not think all atheists are immoral by def

Can't I be both? A fertilized egg and an 11-month-old baby have two things in common: neither of them is a sentient being but both have the potential to become one. I don't see how a rational person can defend the killing of a fertilized egg and the euthanization of an animal but not of a pre-sentient baby.

I agree. The point of the article is more about gaining some of the acceptance for atheists that other minorities enjoy. References to Bill Gates are more tangential.

I think this links with a study a while back that had atheist as the most distrusted minority in America. I doubt there is an out of closet atheist anywhere in US politics.

I think I have finally getting a handle on the fear/distrust of atheist after watching a few 30 days documentaries (atheist/christians, Pro-choice/pro-life) and the "Root of all evil" documentary with Richard Dawkins, and Jesus Camp. You eventually get the strong sense that it is drummed in from day one that there is nothing worse than being without the word of god. So an atheist is unfathomable.

If you are taught from day one that the only "righteous" people are those that are steeped in the word of god. How do you understand someone that thinks about each issue independently? How can you know what they will think? Of course the old chestnut of atheist not having morality crops up. Having no authoritative source, how could they?

Though it is largely inaccurate,I guess I can understand where it comes from. So maybe Scott is correct and we are at least seeing the baby steps of having a very tiny minority of those in the public eye come out on atheism and one or two TV shows with atheists. We may be in the position of starting some very basic education so religious people can eventually get to have some tiny understanding of atheists.

Absolutely! Welcome to the world of indoctrination! People are taught from a very young age their various religious beliefs and morals.

It's funny tho, the whole 'morals from God ' thing. Any Christian I talk to (including relatives) all believe not only in words written on pages thousands of years ago (written by dudes named John and Paul, which are very Jewish names, and also hand-picked by the Catholic church in later years) but also usually support whatever bloodhsed in any part of the world as long as it's in God's name (the 'extremist' and uneducated Muslims love this too). Whether it's the (re-)invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever their morality points them, they all belive in and break the concepts 'written' down thousands of years ago. How hypocritical, yet, it's God's morals they're following. And they know it.

I was indoctrinated into Christianity from a young age. Was told all the scary stories of judgement and this and that and in my late teens/early twenties realized that it was all bullshit. All about control, judgement - all negative. I've never met anyone who is Christ-like in the western world. And I've come to realize that Judeo-based/Christian morals are the last thing I'd ever impart on my kids (if I ever have any). They're, in my opinion, totally backwards and have nothing to do with modern living and have nothing to do with living a decent, educated, fair, and compassionate life.

The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.

While I say each to his own, it's clear to me that the Judeo-based religions are fundamentally flawed and have little place in the future of humanity. Some day, they will be realized (hopefully) as the primitive thinking they are just like the Greek and Roman and even Sumerian or Egyptian gods (which we dismiss as ridiculous nowadays). Of course, I won't live to see it, but it will probably happen. It has to, otherwise humanity will destroy itself. You have only to glimpse any religious leader/figure around the world to be sure of that.

Interesting theory. Apparently the "Christians" you spoke to didn't take any philosophy and morality classes. Most "sinful" activities have logical, non-religious arguments against them, especially when taken in context of the times a religious constraint was enacted by a religion's leadership.

I suggest the atheist in such cases is actually more moral than the religious faithful. They're consciously thinking about what they're doing, the ramifications and

Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality

I've heard that one too. Always really creeped me out.

Why? Because you can infer from that statement that the only reason they are moral is because they believe there is an invisible man watching their every move who will drop them in a boiling lake of sulfur if they misbehave. So the other side of that coin is that they would be completely amoral if The Big Guy wasn't watching them. If religion suddenly went away today, first thing these people would do is go berserk and give in to their every urge - since there would be no reason not to.

All truly religious people, being Absolutist Authoritarians, have no capacity for morality by definition. They simply believe and do what they are told by the church authorities without question or conscience.

Religious based rules are the worst at being twisted. How many killed in Jesus name? Allah's? How many poor are ignored in Christian countries? How many Christians commit murder (of various definitions) adultury etc ad nauseum? We have bible-thumping retards supporting vicious wars, and you're saying that athiests have flexible morals?

Yes, TFA was in humor. But is there no basis in fact? In the US, only the ultra-rich run for (and win) the presidency. Bill Gates in the richest man in the US. Now, it's true not every rich candidate can get elected (as nicely pointed out in the book Freakonomics), but still, the possibility can't be discounted. Like Scott Adams says, give Bill a decade or so of charity work, and his popular image will look pretty voteworthy. A chilling thought.

You don't read Scott Adam's blog a lot, do you? Scott Adams is all about parodies and is always laughing about something, specially about the people who takes seriously what he says. His proposal of Bill Gates as president is just yet another funny post of crazy ways to be president of the united states. Just a small example:

"As a political candidate, I would advocate some sort of tax rebate to subsidize Internet porn and Kleenex for single men between the ages of 18 and 35. That way all the potential rapists can more easily afford to exhaust themselves at home. I'd have graphs and charts to make my argument that no other policy would be as effective. My slogan would be "Deal with the root cause." I would call it my Yankee Doodle plan.

Depressing that people in the US think this is such a crazy, laughable idea:( (Disclaimer, as a smug Euroweenie I and most of the rest of us regard it as pretty incomprehensible that mass religion still holds such a force in US society.)

As well as the Dawkins book ("The God Delusion [amazon.com]", for those of you on the other side of the Atlantic -- I guess it's been supressed as "unAmerican" over there) this is a good, interesting, authoritative and rather depressing read: American Theocracy: The Peril and Politic [amazon.com]

I realize that I will most likely be modded down for this post, but oh well...I can think of two reasons why it might be on Slashdot. The first being that Reddit.com cover it yesterday. And as of right now it is holding as 2nd place for the hottest topic.

The second reason is probably related to online sources from MSNBC, Slashdot, Reddit and other forums, as well as the New York Times best selling list that have included elements of anti-religion and anti-god media. Reading Slashdot's tone on some articles,

Does it offend you that certain books and articles express an opinion contrary to the very popular, widespread, and policy-shaping beliefs held by many highly vocal Americans, and that certain communities on the internet are largely populated by people who share such contrary opinions?

It would be more accurate to state that there is a strong corrolation between being a fundementalist/zealot (of any kind) and being uneducated.
The problem is not with being religious, it is with being uneducated. There are plenty of uneducated atheists in the world. Distribution of intelligence creates a bell curve. There are more uneducated religious people because there are more religious people. If you spliced out the fundementalists, I would expect the bell curve of intelligence within religion to

Can't remember where I saw this so I'll paraphrase: Among highly intelligent people almost everyone is atheist. Not a single member of Congress is atheist. They are either liars or not highly intelligent.

At least, two books, #7, Richard Dawkins book, and #17, A Letter to a Christian Nation, have atheist overtones.

You forgot "CULTURE WARRIOR" at #3 by noted atheist Bill O'Reilly, and "THE MYSTICAL LIFE OF JESUS" at #13 by Sylvia Browne. Oh, right - the world is so "anti-religion" nowadays. It's actually news that atheists have books that are selling now, but "Godless" by Ann Coulter and "Deliver Us From Evil" by Sean Hannity are, of course, not any cause for special note.

Let me just quote Jon Stewart on this one: "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe - dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

I can think of two reasons why it might be on Slashdot. The first being that Reddit.com cover it yesterday. And as of right now it is holding as 2nd place for the hottest topic.

The second reason is probably related to online sources from MSNBC, Slashdot, Reddit and other forums, as well as the New York Times best selling list that have included elements of anti-religion and anti-god media.

To answer your question, I believe that the editors included it because, the general tone of Slashdot is anti-relig

Good luck with that. There is no such thing as news that is not biased. If you think you know of any, then it just proves that they are either good at hiding their bias, or they happen to have precisely the same bias you already have.

Consider that the US produces ~25% of the world's greenhouse gases. I don't think its trees can remove anywhere near that proportion. From what I heard (but I could be wrong on that one), the US has enough land to sustain only about 1/10 of it's population considering its current way of life.

Sorry, we're gonna have to shut your country down temporarily and replace the political drivers. In the meantime, try running in Safe mode - no invasions, no corporations running in Ring 0, and no personal incomes over 640K. (That should be enough for anyone.)

Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model? The current administration has blown away all hope of a balanced budget, would it be so bad if the government actually made a profit?

Put aside the perceived greed that drives M$ and you see that Bill Gates is actually quite a philanthropist.Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model? The current administration has blown away all hope of a balanced budget, would it be so bad if the government actually made a profit?

Put aside the perceived greed that drives M$ and you see that Bill Gates is actually quite a philanthropist. I can see some good things coming from his presidency.

On the flip side though, it may spell doom for small businesses trying to find a fair playing field against the giant almost monopolistic corporations out there.

Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model?

Are you kidding me? Fuck yes it would!

What is the one, single thing any business is intent on doing? Making profit. When you have a government operating like a business, what does it do? It tries to make a profit. And governments can only reasonably make a profit in three different ways: 1) tax the bejesus out of the population, 2) actually print money, and 3) take wealth out of other nations without their consent.

You can not truly 'create wealth'. You can do more with fuel and machines, but commerce and taxation is only shifting wealth around, when you come down to it.

Ask a deeply religious Christian if he'd rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house.

The question presupposes too many things. Namely that muslims are either praying or plotting terror 24/7 and that no athiest ever plans to hurt anyone else.

Muslims, especially arabs, have become what black people were in the time period between reconstruction and the 1960s. The scapegoat for every one of society's ills and a panic button that people with an agenda know that they can push.

Today we have sneak and peek warrants because idiots are afraid that "Da Moose-lims" are going to blow things up. Do you know how people succeeded in getting cocaine criminalized? By scaring the white masses by crafting the idea of big black bucks who were out of their mind on the drug rampaging and raping white women.

Maybe a muslim president would succeed in severing our ubmilical relationship with Israel.

It is interesting to me that the USA is one of the worlds most influential christian nations, and one of the few countries on earth with a constitutional separation between church and state.

By comparison my own country (Australia) is almost athiestic, yet our constitution bars anybody who is not a member of the church of england becoming head of state.

Is it possible that this is a passing phase for the USA? Is the religious right being supported by people who will be dead in 10 years? Or does this run right down through the younger generations?

I get the impression that religion, like support for guns, is just one of the symbolic markers which politicians use to stake their territory. Perhaps because the language of economics is too complex for most people so they have to base their campaigns on simple things.

Is it possible that this is a passing phase for the USA? Is the religious right being supported by people who will be dead in 10 years? Or does this run right down through the younger generations?

Most likely, it's cyclical. The USA goes through periods of heightened religiosity every 50-70 years or so. They are widely recognized by sociologists as "Great Awakenings". See here [wikipedia.org] for a brief article on the current (fourth) one, and links to previous ones. The Third Great Awakening of the late 1800s was probably the one with the greatest impact, as many important American protestant denominations had their starts during that era. It also had its biggest impact at the opposite side of the political spectrum - for America, the Third Great Awakening provided the moral force for the Progressive movement. Child and woman labor laws, compulsory elementary education for all, prohibition of alcohol and a whole host of other progressive causes were largely the outgrowth of that religious revival.

Some of this is no doubt due to the separation clause in our Constitution, but probably not in the way you're envisioning. The separation clause, I think, gives both sides enough latitude to swing too far - when the religious frenzy gets to be too much for sensible folk, the pendulum gets pushed back hard the other way. When secular excess seems to go too far (big changes in sexual mores and capitalism run amok), people start streaming back into churches. An establishment church, where everyone is required to give at least lip service to the church, appears to have a societal calming, but enervating to faith, effect. No one gets too worked up about the church (it's at some level compulsory, after all), but its widespread reach allows its hierarchy to speak with some authority long before the "pendulum" starts moving too fast. You end up with societies formed of irreligious believers - which is a nice, cozy place to be.

Check out this Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]:""In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.[1]"

It seems to me that tacking on the motto about 180 years after the declaration of independence is a sign of a religious right phase that started in the 1950s with Mc

>the "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and, IIRC, is not in any official government document.

No, that exact character string is not in the Constitution, and it doesn't need to be given the multiple clauses disentangling religion and government.

"Separation of church and state" isn't in the Bible either, but Jesus drew the distinction repeatedly: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" in Matthew 22:21, and "My kingdom i

Anyone interested in the possibilities of a world without faith could so worse than read the book "End of Faith" by Sam Harris. This book puts forward a powerful argument against all religions whilst putting forward insightful ideas for an alternative way to add value to our lives. It also has interesting views on radicalism within religion, primarily that the only true believers of any religion are the fanatics as they take the entire bible/koran/whatever at face value and live it whereas more moderates cherry pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't (stoning the neighbour for eating fish on a tuesday, nah, ignore that one. Hate gays? yup, tick) resulting in the vast majority of any given religions followers as basically failing that religons requirements.

I wouldn't disagree although I suspect his intolerence stems from logical rather than theistic reasons which I feel slightly safer with. On balance, I like his reasoning but not his lack of compassion for those 'blighted' with the God Gene.

The bit about eating fish was just a 'top of my head' thought to save me looking up a real one. One could get in to a discussion about OT versus NT but a quick look at e.g. Leviticus will reveal a whole bunch of 'laws' which most modern Christians choose to ignore yet others which they hold to be absolute truths to live their lives by.
As for the bible's comment on homosexuality:
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
In other places the bible notes death as a good solu

One could get in to a discussion about OT versus NT but a quick look at e.g. Leviticus will reveal a whole bunch of 'laws' which most modern Christians choose to ignore yet others which they hold to be absolute truths to live their lives by.

The thing is, that the OT/NT discussion is the key here. The NT thing is that loving God, and loving other people fulfils the entire OT law, without the specific list of items.

Now many evangelicals like to pick and choose from the specific list according to their own tastes/prejudices, but you're right, to be consistent, one should go the whole hog, as Christianity doesn't actually have a concept of big sins/little sins - a sin is a sin is a sin (pace Catholicism). But they don't like it when you point this out, as much of it is clearly absurd to western society. As are the bits they like to pick out. One good exposition of this is the one from the The West Wing [bewarne.com]:

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"

"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"

"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?"

"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"

But just because some people like to pick specifics from a menu doesn't mean that this is at all an accurate, authentic description of Christianity.

> One could get in to a discussion about OT versus NT but a quick look at [...]

I think if you make a comparison, it would soon become obvious that the NT kernel has several advantages, mainly its support for Win32 applications but also environment subsystems compatibility with Posix and OS/2. Also, the way the drivers are handled are rather advantageous, since they're divided into three levels, the middle one also supporting WDM for compatibility with the previous generation of kernel.

But that doesn't mean Christians are obliged to obey Mosaic Law. The NT clearly points out that for Christians, we are under a different (and new) covenant (agreement).

Christians signed a contract for Salvationix 2.0 (built on the Jesus kernel) but God Inc is obligated to continue providing technical support to the Jews as long as they are using Salvationix 1.0 (Jaweh kernel) and trying to get the damned thing to run on Israel-generation hardware, which they are crazily overclocking. The Muslims have a cont

I can see this happening.
- Finland added to list of rogue states.
- Bin laden looses first place to Torvalds
- US army invades China in the War Against Piracy.
- European parliament get accidentaly carpet bombed. Suriving senator drops MS fines.
- Microsoft tax becomes official and mandatory for everyone.
- Making MS jokes becomes capital crime. Death sentence reintroduced in all states.
- Gate-ology becomes state religion. Defines witches as people who use different OS.
- enviromentalists complain on enviromental effects of witch burnings.
- Enviromentalists proven to be very flameble.

No, I wouldn't like to have Bill Gates for president, not because he's
an atheist, but because he's dishonest. From obvious lies he told
during the antitrust trial to the one-sided, biased spin he puts on
almost anything having to do with Microsoft, I simply cannot trust him.
Once a person has lied to me, it is very difficult and often impossible
to re-earn my trust. In Bill Gates' case, I think it is impossible. I
think this is sad for him, but it is his own doing. He is not someone I
admire or respect because of it. At least he has his riches to bask in,
but I could never trust him.

I suppose some will come to his defense and say that he was just
defending or promoting his company, and that's the way business works.
Well, I don't buy that. Does a person's integrity have a price?
This is also why over time I am becoming more and more cynical and
distrustful
about almost any information provided by corporations - it is
almost always one-side, biased in their favor, with any relevant
negative aspects suppressed. This unethical behavior is defended, even
encouraged, in the name of capitalism, business promotion, salesmanship,
and so on as a good, positive thing.

To be forthcoming, in the past I too have twisted the truth to my employer's
customers to please those who signed my paycheck, and I feel
terrible about it. But it is unethical and very wrong, and it is wrong
for society to encourage it as a positive virture. I have decided that
I simply won't do it anymore. Thankfully my life situation permits that
the moment. I realize others aren't so fortunate. But that isn't
an excuse for Bill Gates.

Sam Harris puts it well in The End of Faith when he points out that the only thing you must be to get elected in the United States is religious. You need no education in political science, economics, resource management, social studies, or any other field that is typically involved in serving as President or most public offices. Instead, you must profess a belief in Christianity. Failing to do this and you stand no chance of becoming elected no matter how well informed or qualified you are otherwise. Now, while a cut-throat business man who heads (or headed) a criminal organization is the last person I would choose for the job, I do agree that it would be nice if we eliminated faith as the basis for electing leaders.

It's not religion stupid, it's representation. Look here at the demographics [wikipedia.org] and you will see that the United States is composed of only 8.4% non-religious people, while the other non-christian religions compose only 3% of the population, so 88.6% Christian (26.8% begin Catholic, 19.8% Baptist).

So tell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite to being the top political and commander in chief of this nation? 88% is a pretty convincing argument IMHO.

What does religion have anything to do with setting up a wireless network?!

I am a Christian. I work with a Muslim and a Hindu. Any of the three of us will help you set up your wireless network. None of us are planning on blowing anything up, save maybe lightbulbs in our microwave ovens.

Although Scott Adams may be the best political and business parodist/cartoonist since Dave Barry, he hit upon a serious deficiency in American Politics: Most voters don't know what the job qualifications for President are. The President is supposed to be a leader and executive, guide the country in resolving problems (if possible), but his main job is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (It's in his oath of office.) This has nothing to do with his religion, gender, party affiliation or appearance, but those are the qualifications upon which the voters seem to select our politicians these days.

Which brings up problem number two: Most Americans don't know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, and are probably not qualified to vote. The Declaration of Independence defines the principles upon which this country was founded and the Constitution defines the process by which we govern ourselves. It is embarrassing that I meet so many foreigners who know all about the Constitution and the Declaration, but I seldom find an American college student who can even tell me what's in the Bill of Rights.

I did a Google search for the material claiming that Gates is an athiest and it mostly came back to the following:

Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.

Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?

Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.

Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?

Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

Now, last I heard an athiest was someone who denies the existance of any god while an agnostic questions God's existance. Unless we plan to redefine these words or there is some more significant quote floating around out there, Gates is an agnostic, not an atheist.

The definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are hotly debated. The common definition of atheism being the denial of the existence of gods is inadequate for most people who call themselves atheists. Basically "atheist" should mean the person is a non-theist. In that sense there is no middle ground. Since Gates doesn't have a belief in a particular deity, by that definition he is an atheist. (It's like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't). "Agnosticism" is about knowledge, not belief, so Gates could be both an agnostic and an atheist, just like you could be an agnostic and a theist. What most people think "atheist" means is actually the definition of "strong atheism." I think most people who call themselves "agnostics" by the common definition, are actually "weak atheists". Wikipedia has plenty of information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [wikipedia.org]

I see your point, but really when 90% of a population uses the dominant religion's ceremonies as the way to "do" life's important events, not participating on point of principle is going to make you one very alienated person. e.g. Most people invite you to "the Christening" of their baby, not because they want to show off their Christianity, but because they want to share the joy of their baby with you (because presumably they care about you too), and to celebrate giving a name to this new person. I agree i

On the child molestor odds:Have you heard the stories about some Catholic priests? Or the activities of some cults? Or Michael Jackson? Hardly a scientific study, but arguably in the public mind child abuse is more likely with those who have a strong belief (however bizarre in Jackson's case...).

Irrespective of whether Adams is right or not:Suggesting that the US electorate is more willing to vote for an atheist than a member of a religion that is (however unfairly) associated with the current war in Iraq, 9/11, etc, seems to me an entirely reasonable thing to suggest.

Why is suggesting an atheist president so stupid? Have I missed something? It seems to me Adams is simply hopeful that there might be a president who bases his decisions on facts and thinking, rather than an unaccountable belief system within a framework no one can quite agree on anyway. And again, it seems a reasonable proposition for a debate that the electorate might go for a well respected (outside of the tech community!), successful, famously philanthropic atheist before a Muslim, even if it is only for all the wrong reasons.

I really have to agree with you. I mean, if you think about it, a lot of geeks may have some grudges against Gates, but are they REALLY that big a deal? Sure, we joke about the Borg and all that, but let's compare Microsoft's business to Halliburton's or *Insert Oil Company Here*.Outside the BSoD and Open Source jokes, Bill Gates is a respectable person, I'm sure most of us will (if grudgingly) admit. And I like the idea that logic and fact (Or at least SOME kind of observable data) could be used to make de

I have to agree with l3v1. We will not have an atheist president anytime soon. The superstitions of Americans are just too strong. In fact, we couldn't even have an agnostic. I'm praying we won't have a Mormon in 2008.The funny thing, is that I don't believe will have a Jewish president either. I argued with my wife (who was not born in America) the other night about if Americans will elect a person of color, a woman or a Jew as president first. Forget about Hillary for a moment (and despite our mutua

This is the great misunderstanding about Bill Gates. Many people think of him as a brilliant technologist, but he is actually a brilliant businessman with a good understanding of computer technology. Unfortunately I expect he will go into the history books as a brilliant technologist.

Actually, China is more capitalistic than most other countries in the world. The really bad form of capitalism, at that. People exploited for less than minimum wager because there are so many that there's always another worker but not another job. The main criteria for communism is simply that the workers control the means of production - which is not really the case.Interestingly, some American and European capitalistic companies have found giving some control to the workers a god incentive (stocks/options

Most examples we've seen of communism so far have just been modern versions of feudalism, with little in common with actual communism

You may be missing my point: the actual examples seen in history are the actual examples of communism. I offer the unwillingness of communist adherents to accept the reality as proof that communism is more or less a religion. The system is novel in the abstract, but goes feudal (or fascist) when combined with Real Live People: it models the human spirit poorly on a good da

I don't know what Bill's views are really but let's say he's on the democratic ticket. Wouldn't that be funny if he ended up running against Arnold Schwarzenegger (assuming if the law were to be changed). Now that would be an interesting election.

Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment that repeals term limits (the 22nd Amendment) as well as removing the "Natural Born Citizen" rule.Which would let Bill Clinton run against Ahnold. And from basically every opinion poll I've seen since 1998, Bill Clinton would be the President until he dies, or his penis falls off, which I suppose is redundant.

In all seriousness, though, I think both of those things SHOULD be repealed.

The 22nd Amendment was only passed because Democrats and Republicans were pissed off at

So let me get this straight: athiests have free will and self-determinism, but people who hold religious beliefs, by their very nature, do not? Is this your way of saying athiests are superior intellectually, and possibly biologically as well?Most self-acclaimed athiests I know are not, in the least bit, analytical. They have grown up being taught that the facts are in, and they are conclusive: we evolved. Regardless of the fact that it's a theory, it's taught as doctrine. I'm not saying anything else has a

CAUTION
Personal opinions ahead
Danger of collision with popular beliefs

A strange notion seems to have gained popularity about a human being that is always completely self-sufficient, rational, and objective - or at least most of the time. I've yet to meet such a person. I certainly know myself well enough to tell you I'm not one. This notion is bubbling under theories of alternative economic theories that are based on individuals buying everything they need on a perfectly-functioning private market, with